Super kudos to your brevity and articulation, I applaud you.

Wow! This discussion is getting interesting. Please allow me to address some specific statements made concerning biblical translation, the Gnostic heresy (which includes the Lilith myth and the recent resurrection of the Gospel of Judas), the differences between the canons (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish), and the different views of inspired scripture amongst Christians. Though this may span a few paragraphs, I think I can address the objections Dave and Janos have raised.

First, however, let’s keep in mind that each and every human being is “religious” by nature. Whether one worships at the throne of self, science, man, or God, all of us place our faith in, as well as worship some One or some thing. This is evident in Evolutionary Theory as well. Evolution is actually comprised of six (6) separate theories that contemporary scientists like to call “fact” versus theory ““ despite the lack of an archeological record. Even its latest discovery is somewhat fishy (suspect). I raise this issue to underscore two particulars: (1) Lack of an archeological record does not dissuade scientists from calling a theory fact, yet (2) one of your writers questions the veracity of the Bible because of an alleged lack of an archeological record (in some circumstances).

Secondly, the area of Bible translation is a hot topic with Dave, so let me address that subject next. There are three primary delineations for translations: The Roman Catholic Vulgate, the attempt at literal translation that ends with the King James, and the paraphrase and whole meaning/language translations that form the basis for the more modern translations, such as the NIV. In comparison to all other ancient manuscripts, the Bible has remained closest to the oldest texts we have than any other literary work ““ and the Bible is a literary work. It is comprised of history, poetry, song, metaphoric illustrations, etc. Therefore, when one interprets whichever translation one is using, one must employ a historical grammatical approach in their hermeneutic or they can end of taking chances with snake bites or gouging out their eyes ““ neither of which God ever intended for His adopted children to do. BTW, the use of a proper hermeneutic is how we reconcile apparent “contradictions.” Are their “political” and other reasons some texts were changed? Absolutely. King James, a practicing homosexual, was shrewd enough to be wary of John Calvin’s writings within the margins of the Geneva Bible (the Bible I already noted was instrumental in our own Revolutionary War). Therefore, King James commissioned a new work without the marginalia. However, there are other minor discrepancies in the translation. For example, in Acts 12, the word Easter appears, despite the fact the Greek word is the same word used everywhere else in the New Testament for Passover. Keep in mind, Easter is a pagan holiday, not a Christian holy day. Does this substantially alter the text? Yes and no. Everyone in Christendom knows what the text refers to, even in the 21st Century. However, Passover, which began this past Wednesday night, and is followed by the eight day Feast of Unleavened Bread, is an entirely different holy day. The point is this: Man can alter the Bible all he wants to but, if God IS who He says He is, then His plan will not be thwarted by man’s trifling machinations.

Thirdly, let me address the liberal attacks on the Bible that began in earnest during the 19th Century. The liberals attempted to remove all of the miraculous events in the Bible’s text via some very interesting logical explanations. This heresy infected the mainline Protestant denominations since and one can hardly recognize the Episcopal, Presbyterian (USA), and a host of the other mainline denominations because they refuse to accept traditional Christian creedal statements. Another heresy Dave mentions is the Gnostic heresy that included the myth of Lilith. Nowhere in any of the oldest Torahs do we find this icon of modern feminism. She just doesn’t exist. She was incorporated into Gnostic teaching when this heresy was rampant. Although it is somewhat important for a Christian apologist to know these things (which all seasoned Christians should strive to be), they are really irrelevant to the heart and soul of Christianity and its outworking by its adherents.

Fourth, regarding Heaven and Hell, Dave, your statements do not match the historical record because you do not take into account the two very different locations the Old Testament refers to for the abode of the dead. One is sheol and one is clearly our contemporary view of Hell (fire and eternal torment ““ remember the man who was in hell that asked another to warn his brothers?). Both of these we can find articulated in the OT, and reinforced in the NT. In fact, Christ spends quite a bit of time talking about Hell and the Genesis account of Creation. Considering the Bible makes it clear the Christ was there at Creation, I think I will take His Word for what occurred before my birth. Dave, it is apparent you have gotten your hands on some very liberal scholarship. May I be bold enough to ask you to read the other side of the story?

Fifth, returning to translation, let me assure Janos his linguist friend is not someone I would turn to for a clear understanding of the Bible. In the King James Version, for example, the 17th Century English word “kill” is synonymous with “murder.” During the ensuing centuries of UK and American English changes in meaning, the meanings between murder and kill have taken on separate identities. This is hardly an argument for politically motivated translation. It is, however, a reaffirmation of the need to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation because when one does this one is able to understand God’s proscribed penalties for homicide (yep, all degrees of homicide, including manslaughter and pre-meditated murder are covered in detail within the biblical text).

Sixth, the Ten Commandments do not address how one eats. The kosher dietary laws Janos is referring to are found in the Torah, the first five “books” of the OT and NT (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy). Besides dietary laws that are health oriented, these books lay the foundation for man’s depraved nature, his need for a savior, the fact all men are image bearers of God (which is why we never slander or say hateful things about other people), etc. If Janos is correct in his posit that man can create an ethical system of his own, then I would like to see the evidence. All of man’s philosophical systems that attempt to provide a moral and ethical framework derive their positive nature by borrowing from the Judeo-Christian system. Many philosophical systems do not even attempt to address moral and ethical dilemmas of right and wrong. Moreover, if one studies the Jewish mindset and writings, you will find the ancient writings devoid of philosophy. Jews did not need a man-centric explanation (philosophy). For them everything began and ended with God, which is a very wise place to end this lengthy post.

Mark

Regarding those who don’t think standards are important, I like to think that people can at least listen to what has to be said about it. If they don’t want to go with it, that’s their choice, but they’ll at least know a little about it. If they think their way is working, good for them, give ‘em a cookie. But if they miss out on important stuff it’s their fault and they can’t expect sympathy or leniency. It’s like handing in a halfway completed final in college; the “Oh, I was a bit lost on this one” excuse doesn’t earn you any sympathy points.

We aren’t given unreasonable standards on the web or in scripture. It’s good to keep in mind that standards are minimum requirements. Like you seem to say quite often, we need to put ourselves out there and go above and beyond the minimum. Standards aren’t difficult – going beyond is.